Red Line...I didn't say that..the world did....

Red Line...I didn't say that..the world did.... - 09/09/1305:51 PM

President Obama said in Sweden today that he personally "didn't set a red line" on Syria:

"First of all, I didn't set a red line," said Obama. "The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."

Of course he said it. I am sure he wishes he hadn't. At the time I am sure it seemed easier, the sides clearer. But it's not and hopefully he'll back off. I don't care what it does to his reputation. If he has to say, "I didn't say red line" to get off the warpath, then say away IMHO.

I scoff at the posts on FB and everywhere saying, "see, look where Obama got us?" Like this wouldn't have happened to any president leading the country thought of as the policeman of the world? That still doesn't mean we/he can't still back off.

His red line is the international law, the world's red line. Obama didn't set the red line, the international legal standard, but he has always taken a stand to enforce it as Commander in Chief. He has doubled down on his statement that the red line is also a moral standard of human rights also set by international law.

But you and the Weekly Standard ( and FoxNews and Limbaugh and Hannity, blah blah blah) can feign ignorance of this and any normal comprehensive skills and call the President a freaking liar because of the unfiltered hatred of him and outright outrage that he is Commander in Chief. I accept your blind hatred. Good for you. During election season there's a term called "idiot wind" that describes this type of deliberate twisting and parsing of words to validate a "freaking liar" comment. You nailed it John.

I don't want to start a pissing war with you and I'm not going to post any more in this thread, and yes I am an ardent supporter of President Obama and I'm biased as all getout, but this nonsense is best left to the paid blowhards at the Weekly Standard and not the Soapbox where the troll bait leaves no room for dialog, only confrontational reponses like mine in taking your bait. No hard feelings, but you post sucks.

I do not think that we should attack Syria. I like the Russian dodge of turning over the weapons to the UN. Absent that, I would vote (as if it mattered!) to bring the issue to the ICC, even though the US ignores the ICC and so is, in relation to international law, a scofflaw.

Nonetheless, Gary, you're right that the liar tag is dead wrong. If it makes you laugh: there's a clip making the rounds of Rove blowing up at Juan Williams because Williams says that there was no lying about Benghazi. Rove, mind you!

In the dim and distant days when politics stopped at the water's edge, maybe, Dave--although even then presidential speech making and official policy differed significantly. But nowadays? I believe the US has no official policy on anything because no one controls the government any more.

Hey, my suggestion a week or so ago on how to handle this is actually working out.

Obama announced diplomacy was always his first option.Obama makes Syria look down the barrel of his guns. In a way, Russian interests in the region too.Obama met with Putin during the G20 and struck a deal.International monitors to secure chemical weapons (I said it would be the UN)Putin makes the deal and gets the credit.Media ignores Obama's credit in forcing Russia's move to cooporate.Blowhards call Obama a freaking liar, praise Putin, impeach Obama.

That was my first thought when I saw the inspection news. I thought that I should have trusted our elected Commander in Chief to do things right and that all his detractors will find ways to make this a negative thing for him.

All of the politics and the media coverage has been to judge Obama's actions by George Bush's record of lies as Commander in Chief in starting a war in Iraq. Not judging Obama by his own handling of foreign policy and his successes as CiC, but like the economy, pinning it all on the black guy*.

* yes, Limbaugh is saying Obama's threat of military force on Syria is called operation "Shuck & Jive".

Look where's he gotten us now. Assad has agreed to a plan for handing over chemical weapons and must give an inventory of its stockpile within a week. Kerry and Lavrov are making joint press conferences and agreeing on something substantial, which hasn't happened between our two countries in a long time. WTF?

The saddest thing is I bet there are some hardcore Obama haters out there just praying this fails.

All this shows that Obama has given up America's premiership of world leadership. What a wimp! We're now following Russian leadership, and Putin--Putin!!--is the guy the whole world looks up to. Obama has embarrassed himself, and worse, embarrassed the US. Impeach the traitor!

I think you can hold your breath for this one--and it won't strain your lungs for you to do so.

For some reason I can't stop myself from going to the FB pages etc. of "friends" inclined strongly to the right. A little self-punishment is good now and then. I have noticed their anti-Obama rhetoric on this seems to have dried up. No more, "he's handled this badly from the beginning and is no in over his head" blah blah. Nothing positive to say either, but it's something.

Bill Maher, never one to hold his tongue had this to say on his show recently about Syria and American interventionism overall.

On Friday night’s edition of “Real Time With Bill Maher,” the venerable host hammered U.S. foreign policy in general, but specifically as it pertains to the crisis in Syria. In the first segment of his show, back from its Augus vacation, known as “New Rules,” Maher wrapped the bit up by excoriating not just President Obama, but all the U.S. presidents who have continued to use military force to intervene in other countries’ conflicts. Perhaps Maher’s most stinging criticism was when he said that American policies in Syria made our country look like George Zimmerman, the recently acquitted killer of young Trayvon Martin.

“We need to have a debate about why we’re always debating about whether to bomb someone. Because we’re starting to look not so much like the world’s policeman, but more like George Zimmerman,” Maher told the audience both in the studio and at home. The political pundit and comedian said we act like Zimmerman because we’re “itching to use force, and then pretending we had no choice.” Those words might be a bitter pill for some in the country to swallow, but with over 60% of the population opposing the use of force in Syria, Maher may be onto something that many Americans on both sides of the aisle are feeling.

Saw that segment and it WAS powerful ! I think it was spot ON !! and the list of nations we have bombed since WWII is like the number of countries we have bases in... L O N G !! Like he said, about the only thing we haven't BOMBED is Sea World !!

I often think Bill Maher says what it is I am thinking, even if it can be in a crass way. I still remember him calling foul on Time magazine for choosing Rudy Giuliani as "the man who has had the biggest impact on world events" over Osama Bin Laden in the wake of 9/11 attacks. He pointed out that Time had no trouble choosing Hitler back in the day. Ah, Bill, keep em comin.

I go in an check on Rush every now and then on his radio show or web page just to see what this great thinker is thinking. Ahem. And today you had to go pretty far down the page to find anything about Syria. Looks like it is hard to find anything bad to say about the Obama administration's handling of it, at least for now.

Did we really have a sockpuppet in the Soapbox? Pathetic. Probably better use of their time to try to sell us kitchens.

Originally Posted By: yoyo52

Originally Posted By: random wingnut

All this shows that Obama has given up America's premiership of world leadership. What a wimp! We're now following Russian leadership, and Putin--Putin!!--is the guy the whole world looks up to. Obama has embarrassed himself, and worse, embarrassed the US. Impeach the traitor!

I think you can hold your breath for this one--and it won't strain your lungs for you to do so.

That possibility also occurred to me. Good copy yoyo. Really nowhere out of the realm of imagination.

Just the other day my dad (always trying to goad me) sent me a picture of a "protester" somewhere holding a placard reading "Waterboard Obama - find out what he knows" Not being one to back down from a fight I responded with "As Cheney and his lap dog discovered, you can solve all your problems with waterboarding"

I just can't get away from the notion thatPres. Obama used a bit of slight of hand(reverse psychology) to get what he wantedand did such a great job at it that Gopppersdoano whether to spit of wind their watches.

KNOWING full well no matter WHAT HE DIDthey would reflexively demand the opposite,if he DIDN'T want to bomb Syria, the onlything he had to do was to claim that he did.

On one hand Goppers are calling him a wimp, while on the other calling him Pres. Obomber

Syria and Putin agreed to everything that Obama demanded because it was backed up by a show of force, they agree on an immediate timetable to destroy chemical weapons stockpiles … and the media is still reporting that this was an Obama failure and epic foreign policy incompetency. And like I said in an earlier post, the Bush Doctrine is dead and the GOP are now on-the-record peaceniks. Gotta love it. What's the downside??, …. Obama is sure to lose his reelection bid in 2016

Usually I'd laugh at the idea that Russia--or any nation, really, but especially Russia--could be an honest broker. But there's a remarkable bit of data that makes me hopeful. Apparently, in the discussion with the State Dept., the Russians presented an accounting of what their intelligence says about Syrian chemical weapons that is almost identical to what US intelligence says. They're not hiding anything, in other words.

To be sure, I guess you could say that the Russkies have a mole in the CIA, who told them what the CIA data shows, and then they doctored their own assessment to dovetail with that the mole told them about the CIA material.